DOCSLIB.ORG

KDW Z D/S ^Dh Z KE BLOCKING, FILTERING and TAKE-DOWN OF

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
KDW Z D/S ^Dh Z KE BLOCKING, FILTERING and TAKE-DOWN OF KDWZd/s^dhz KE BLOCKING, FILTERING AND TAKE-DOWN OF ILLEGAL INTERNET CONTENT Excerpt, pages 494-506 This document is part of the Comparative Study on blocking, filtering and take-down of illegal Internet content in the 47 member States of the Council of Europe, which was prepared by the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law upon an invitation by the Secretary General. The opinions expressed in this document do not engage the responsibility of the Council of Europe. They should not be regarded as placing upon the legal instruments mentioned in it any official interpretation capable of binding the governments of Council of Europe member ^ƚĂƚĞƐ͕ƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝůŽĨƵƌŽƉĞ͛Ɛstatutory organs or the European Court of Human Rights. Avis 14-067 Lausanne, 20 December 2015 National reports current at the date indicated at the end of each report. Dorigny ʹ CH ʹ 1015 Lausanne - Tel : +41 (0)21 692 49 11 - Fax : +41 (0)21 692 4949 ʹ www.isdc.ch ʹ [email protected] i I. /EdZKhd/KE On 24th November 2014, the Council of Europe formally mandated the Swiss Institute of Comparative >Ăǁ;͞^/>͟ͿƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĐŽŵƉĂƌĂƚŝǀĞƐƚƵĚLJŽŶƚŚĞůĂǁƐĂŶĚƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞŝŶƌĞƐƉĞĐƚŽĨĨŝůƚĞƌŝŶŐ͕ďůŽĐŬŝŶŐ and takedown of illegal content on the internet in the 47 Council of Europe member States. As agreed between the SICL and the Council of Europe, the study presents the laws and, in so far as information is easily available, the practices concerning the filtering, blocking and takedown of illegal content on the internet in several contexts. It considers the possibility of such action in cases where public order or internal security concerns are at stake as well as in cases of violation of personality rights and intellectual property rights. In each case, the study will examine the legal framework underpinning decisions to filter, block and takedown illegal content on the internet, the competent authority to take such decisions and the conditions of their enforcement. The scope of the study also includes consideration of the potential for existing extra-judicial scrutiny of online content as well as a brief description of relevant and important case law. The study consists, essentially, of two main parts. The first part represents a compilation of country reports for each of the Council of Europe Member States. It presents a more detailed analysis of the laws and practices in respect of filtering, blocking and takedown of illegal content on the internet in each Member State. For ease of reading and comparison, each country report follows a similar structure (see below, questions). The second part contains comparative considerations on the laws and practices in the member States in respect of filtering, blocking and takedown of illegal online content. The purpose is to identify and to attempt to explain possible convergences and divergences ďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞDĞŵďĞƌ^ƚĂƚĞƐ͛ĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐƚŽƚŚĞŝƐƐƵĞƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƐĐŽƉĞŽĨƚŚĞƐƚƵĚLJ͘ ii //͘ Dd,KK>K'zEYh^d/KE^ 1. Methodology The present study was developed in three main stages. In the first, preliminary phase, the SICL formulated a detailed questionnaire, in cooperation with the Council of Europe. After approval by the Council of Europe, this questionnaire (see below, 2.) represented the basis for the country reports. The second phase consisted of the production of country reports for each Member State of the Council of Europe. Country reports were drafted by staff members of SICL, or external correspondents for those member States that could not be covered internally. The principal sources underpinning the country reports are the relevant legislation as well as, where available, academic writing on the relevant issues. In addition, in some cases, depending on the situation, interviews were conducted with stakeholders in order to get a clearer picture of the situation. However, the reports are not based on empirical and statistical data, as their main aim consists of an analysis of the legal framework in place. In a subsequent phase, the SICL and the Council of Europe reviewed all country reports and provided feedback to the different authors of the country reports. In conjunction with this, SICL drafted the comparative reflections on the basis of the different country reports as well as on the basis of academic writing and other available material, especially within the Council of Europe. This phase was finalized in December 2015. The Council of Europe subsequently sent the finalised national reports to the representatives of the respective Member States for comment. Comments on some of the national reports were received back from some Member States and submitted to the respective national reporters. The national reports were amended as a result only where the national reporters deemed it appropriate to make amendments. Furthermore, no attempt was made to generally incorporate new developments occurring after the effective date of the study. All through the process, SICL coordinated its activities closely with the Council of Europe. However, the contents of the study are the exclusive responsibility of the authors and SICL. SICL can however not assume responsibility for the completeness, correctness and exhaustiveness of the information submitted in all country reports. 2. Questions In agreement with the Council of Europe, all country reports are as far as possible structured around the following lines: 1. What are the legal sources for measures of blocking, filtering and take-down of illegal internet content? Indicative list of what this section should address: Is the area regulated? Have international standards, notably conventions related to illegal internet content (such as child protection, cybercrime and fight against terrorism) been transposed into the domestic regulatory framework? iii Is such regulation fragmented over various areas of law, or, rather, governed by specific legislation on the internet? Provide a short overview of the legal sources in which the activities of blocking, filtering and take-down of illegal internet content are regulated (more detailed analysis will be included under question 2). 2. What is the legal framework regulating: 2.1. Blocking and/or filtering of illegal internet content? Indicative list of what this section should address: On which grounds is internet content blocked or filtered? This part should cover all the following grounds, wherever applicable: o the protection of national security, territorial integrity or public safety (e.g. terrorism), o the prevention of disorder or crime (e.g. child pornography), o the protection of health or morals, o the protection of the reputation or rights of others (e.g. defamation, invasion of privacy, intellectual property rights), o preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence. What requirements and safeguards does the legal framework set for such blocking or filtering? What is the role of Internet Access Providers to implement these blocking and filtering measures? Are there soft law instruments (best practices, codes of conduct, guidelines, etc.) in this field? A brief description of relevant case-law. 2.2. Take-down/removal of illegal internet content? Indicative list of what this section should address: On which grounds is internet content taken-down/ removed? This part should cover all the following grounds, wherever applicable: o the protection of national security, territorial integrity or public safety (e.g. terrorism), o the prevention of disorder or crime (e.g. child pornography), o the protection of health or morals, o the protection of the reputation or rights of others (e.g. defamation, invasion of privacy, intellectual property rights), o preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence. What is the role of Internet Host Providers and Social Media and other Platforms (social networks, search engines, forums, blogs, etc.) to implement these content take down/removal measures? What requirements and safeguards does the legal framework set for such removal? Are there soft law instruments (best practices, code of conduct, guidelines, etc.) in this field? A brief description of relevant case-law. iv 3. Procedural Aspects: What bodies are competent to decide to block, filter and take down internet content? How is the implementation of such decisions organized? Are there possibilities for review? Indicative list of what this section should address: What are the competent bodies for deciding on blocking, filtering and take-down of illegal internet content (judiciary or administrative)? How is such decision implemented? Describe the procedural steps up to the actual blocking, filtering or take-down of internet content. What are the notification requirements of the decision to concerned individuals or parties? Which possibilities do the concerned parties have to request and obtain a review of such a decision by an independent body? 4. General monitoring of internet: Does your country have an entity in charge of monitoring internet content? If yes, on what basis is this monitoring activity exercised? Indicative list of what this section should address: The entities referred to are entities in charge of reviewing internet content and assessing the compliance with legal requirements, including human rights ʹ they can be specific entities in charge of such review as well as Internet Service Providers. Do such entities exist? What are the criteria of their assessment of internet content? What are their competencies to tackle illegal internet content? 5. Assessment as to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights Indicative list
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Miscavige Legal Statements: a Study in Perjury, Lies and Misdirection
    SPEAKING OUT ABOUT ORGANIZED SCIENTOLOGY ~ The Collected Works of L. H. Brennan ~ Volume 1 The Miscavige Legal Statements: A Study in Perjury, Lies and Misdirection Written by Larry Brennan [Edited & Compiled by Anonymous w/ <3] Originally posted on: Operation Clambake Message board WhyWeProtest.net Activism Forum The Ex-scientologist Forum 2006 - 2009 Page 1 of 76 Table of Contents Preface: The Real Power in Scientology - Miscavige's Lies ...................................................... 3 Introduction to Scientology COB Public Record Analysis....................................................... 12 David Miscavige’s Statement #1 .............................................................................................. 14 David Miscavige’s Statement #2 .............................................................................................. 16 David Miscavige’s Statement #3 .............................................................................................. 20 David Miscavige’s Statement #4 .............................................................................................. 21 David Miscavige’s Statement #5 .............................................................................................. 24 David Miscavige’s Statement #6 .............................................................................................. 27 David Miscavige’s Statement #7 .............................................................................................. 29 David Miscavige’s Statement #8 .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ENT ~~~'~Orqx Eecop~.R ~ * ~ ~Z2~'
    $ENT ~~~'~orQX eecop~.r ~ * ~ ~Z2~'aVED T~u~TcHcouN~ PF~OSECUT~NG A1T~ L_t\~R Z~ 1~99O eIICD 1 2 UNITED ST .~~d~~oURu1r PbP~ )A1~9O 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ~ W UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, 6 v. ) No. cR-S60616-DL7 7 ) STEPHEN 71510 WI, ) MMORaNDUX OPIUZON 8 Defendant. 9 10 On camber 27, 1969, this Court heard the government's motion to exclude certain expert testimony proffered b~ 12 defendant. Assistant United States Attorney Robert Dondero IS appeared for the government. Hark Nuri3~ appeared for defendant. 14 Since the hearing the partiem have filed supplemental briefing, which the Court has received and reviewed. For all the following 16 reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the 17 government' a motion. 18 19 I * BACKGROUND FACTS 20 The United States indicted Steven ?iuhman on eleven counts 21 of mail fraud, in violation of IS U.S.C. 1 1341, 011 September 22 23, 1968. The indictment charges that Xr. Fishman defrauded 23 various federal district courts, including those in the Northern 24 District of California, by fraudulently obtaining settlement 25 monies and securities in connection with .hareholder class action 28 lawsuits. This fraud allegedly occurred over a lengthy period 27 of time -~ from September 1963 to Nay 1958. 28 <<< Page 1 >>> SENT ~y;~grox ~ ~ * Two months after his indictment, defendant notified this 2 Court of his intent to rely on an insanity defense, pursuant to Rule 12.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Within the context of his insanity defense, defendant seeks to present 5 evidence that influence techniques, or brainwashing, practiced 8 upon him by the Church of Scientology ("the Church") warn a cause of his state of mind at the tim.
    [Show full text]
  • Lonesome Squirrel
    LONESOME SQUIRREL by STEVEN FISHMAN © 1991 Steven Fishman. Non-profit reproduction is encouraged. CONTENTS Chapter Title Page 01 Raw Meat Off The Street 4 02 Life is Just A Present Time Problem 25 03 Theta Doesn't Grow On Trees 36 04 If You Blink, You Flunk 85 05 In Guardians We Trust 95 06 A Case Of First Suppression 105 07 The Environment Is A Nice Place To Visit, 116 But I Wouldn't Want To Live Here 08 Does Anybody Have A Bridge They Can Sell Me? 127 09 Romancing LaVenda 138 10 A Valence In Every Port 171 11 Families Are Nothing But Trouble 183 12 Blank Scripts For Acting Classes 202 13 Breaking Up Is Hard To Do, But We Can Help 214 14 For Less Than Two Million Dollars, 241 You Could Set Half The World Free 15 Death Of A Sailorsman In A Billion Year Time Warp 289 16 History Can Always Be Re-Written 308 17 Crusading For Source Perforce Of Course 325 18 We Always Deliver What We Promise 341 19 When You Yield To Temptation You Always Get Burned 391 20 Charity Doesn't Begin At Home 426 21 If Mary Sue Could Do It, You Can Do It 442 22 It's Easier To Bury One's Mistakes 473 23 Paying The Price For A Fate Worse Than Death 487 24 Earning The Protection Of The Church 522 25 A Race To Get To Sea As The Captain Of A Sinking Ship 542 26 Messiah In The Spin Bin 573 27 Epilogue: Getting Really Clear 602 Footnotes Quoted References of L.
    [Show full text]
  • Brainwashing in Scientology's Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF)
    Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg Behörde für Inneres – Arbeitsgruppe Scientology und Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Brainwashing in Scientology’s Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg Behörde für Inneres – Arbeitsgruppe Scientology und Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Brainwashing in Scientology’s Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) Introduction The Scientology Organisation, its methods, its business practices and above all its victims and their fate continue to arouse the interest of the public. In recent years various media reports have also highlited one aspect of the Organisation, the ”Rehabi- litation Project Force” – or RPF. Particularly the reports of former members who have endured the RPF in the US, the UK and in Denmark have made it possible for the author of this brochure, Prof. Ste- phen A. Kent, to describe what I consider to be inhuman practices within the RPF. If the term ”brainwashing”, so often associated with the Scientology Organisation by the public, applies at all, then it certainly applies to the RPF, as this brochure shows. The RPF is part of the ”Sea Organisation” (als known as ”Sea-Org”) of the Scientology Organisation. Sea-Org was created in 1967 and according to L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Scientology Organisation, it is the ”sole guarantee of the survival of Scientology technology on this planet”. Members of Sea-Org use pseudo-naval ranks and uniforms, an the unit is fully organised along military lines. Sea-Org states that its aim is to ”maintain Scientology as a functioning organisation” and that the members, according to its own publicity, have ”signed a contract of eternal service to Scientolo- gy and its aims”.
    [Show full text]
  • Louis Jolyon West Papers LSC.0590
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c84j0hcd No online items Finding Aid for the Louis Jolyon West Papers LSC.0590 Finding aid prepared by Jolene Beiser, 2009. UCLA Library Special Collections Online finding aid last updated 2019 August 2. Room A1713, Charles E. Young Research Library Box 951575 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575 [email protected] URL: https://www.library.ucla.edu/special-collections Finding Aid for the Louis Jolyon LSC.0590 1 West Papers LSC.0590 Language of Material: English Contributing Institution: UCLA Library Special Collections Title: Louis Jolyon West papers Creator: West, Louis Jolyon Identifier/Call Number: LSC.0590 Physical Description: 106 Linear Feet(265 boxes) Date (inclusive): 1890-1998 Date (bulk): 1948-1998 Abstract: Louis Jolyon (Jolly) West, M.D. (1924-1999) was a well-known Los Angles psychiatrist who served as the chair of UCLA's Department of Psychiatry and as director of the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute from 1969 to 1989. He was an expert on cults, coercive persuasion ("brainwashing"), alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, and terrorism. The collection contains Dr. West's research materials, lecture and presentation materials, personal and professional correspondence, and documents related to his professional associations and academic positions. Language of Material: Materials are in English. Stored off-site. All requests to access special collections material must be made in advance using the request button located on this page. Conditions Governing on Access Open for reserach with the following exceptions: Boxes 250-265 are not available due to HIPAA restrictions. Please contact Special Collections reference ([email protected]) for more information.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anti-Cult Ideology and FECRIS: Dangers for Religious Freedom a White Paper
    The Anti-Cult Ideology and FECRIS: Dangers for Religious Freedom A White Paper Luigi Berzano University of Torino, Italy Boris Falikov Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, Russia Willy Fautré Human Rights Without Frontiers, Brussels, Belgium Liudmyla Filipovich Department of Religious Studies, Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine Massimo Introvigne Center for Studies on New Religions, Torino, Italy Bernadette Rigal-Cellard University Bordeaux-Montaigne, Bordeaux, France Torino, Italy: Bitter Winter, 2021 1. The Anti-Cult Ideology In 2020, the USCIRF (United States Commission on International Religious Freedom), a bipartisan commission of the U.S. federal government, identified the anti-cult ideology as a major threat to international religious liberty (USCIRF 2020). The anti-cult ideology, or anti-cultism, is based on the idea that “religions” and “cults” are different. “Cults,” it claims, are not religions, although they may falsely claim to be religious. While religions are joined freely, “victims” join “cults” because of the latter’s coercive practices. International terminology needs a preliminary clarification. The derogatory English word “cult” should not be translated with “culte” in French, and similar words in other languages. As scholars of religion have noticed from decades, the French word having the same derogatory meaning of the English “cult” is “secte,” rather than “culte.” “Cult” should be translated with “secte” in French, and in turn “secte” should be translated with “cult”—not with “sect,” which does not have the same negative meaning (for example, the different mainline Buddhist schools are often referred to in English as “Buddhist sects,” with no negative judgment implied).
    [Show full text]
  • Wright, Stuart A. and Susan J. Palmer, Storming Zion: Government Raids on Religious Communities
    Theory in Action, Vol. 12, No. 3, July (© 2019) DOI:10.3798/tia.1937-0237.1925 Q and A with Author: Wright, Stuart A. and Susan J. Palmer, Storming Zion: Government Raids on Religious Communities. Oxford University Press, 2015. ISBN: 978-0195398908 (paperback). 306 pages. $32.95. Stuart A. Wright1 Interviewed by Robert M. Worley2 [Article copies available for a fee from The Transformative Studies Institute. E-mail address: [email protected] Website: http://www.transformativestudies.org ©2019 by The Transformative Studies Institute. All rights reserved.] The new book, Storming Zion: Government Raids on Religious Communities, authored by Stuart A. Wright and Susan J. Palmer removes common stereotypes about non-traditional religious movements, often pejoratively referred to as “cults.” Recently Robert M. Worley, Book Review Editor of Theory in Action asked the lead author a few questions related to this scholarly work. RW: In your book, you and your coauthor mention that religious raids often involve paramilitary actions in spite of the fact that very few new religious movements actually have a history of violence. Why do you suppose governments are so quick to employ aggressive use of force? 1 Stuart A. Wright is Professor of Sociology and Chair of the Department of Sociology, Social Work and Criminal Justice at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas. Dr. Wright teaches courses in religion, social movements, and terrorism. He has authored over fifty publications in scholarly books and journals. He is known internationally for his research on religious and political movements, conflict and violence. He has published five books, including Armageddon in Waco (University of Chicago Press, 1995), Patriots, Politics, and the Oklahoma City Bombing (Cambridge University Press, 2007) and Saints under Siege: The Texas State Raid on the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (with James T.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Scientology Or Censorship
    SCIENTOLOGY OR CENSORSHIP: YOU DECIDE An Examination of the Church of Scientology, Its Recent Battles with Individual Internet Users and Service Providers, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the Implications for Free Speech on the Web Theresa A. Lyons* "Ideas, and not battles, mark the forward progress of mankind."1 I. INTRODUCTION This is a story of long drawn-out battles fought between numerous controversial entities, all of which use weapons of conflicting legal paradigms in an uncertain space. On one side is the Church of Scientology.2 On the other, former disgruntled Scientologists,3 Internet Service Providers (hereinafter "ISPs")4 and the news media.5 * J.D. and M.S.W. expected May 2001, Rutgers University School of Law - Camden and Rutgers University Graduate School of Social Work - New Brunswick. Ms. Lyons would like to thank the editorial staff of the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion and also Professor Rod Dixon for their help and contributions to this article. 1 This quote, attributed to L. Ron Hubbard, is posted on the boardroom wall at the Religious Technology Center (“RTC”) in Los Angeles. See Jim Lippard & Jeff Jacobsen, Scientology v. the Internet: Free Speech & Copyright Infringement on the Information Super-Highway, 3 SKEPTIC 3, 40 (1995), at http://www.skeptic.com/03.3.jl-jj-scientology.html (update to original article) (on file with the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion). The RTC is one of the formal entities constituting the Church of Scientology and is known for being a "watch dog" of sorts, actively pursuing those who publish or disseminate controversial Church materials without permission.
    [Show full text]
  • The Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Brainwashing-Related Cases - Should Witnesses Be Fryed? Virginia M
    Santa Clara Law Review Volume 32 | Number 2 Article 7 1-1-1992 The Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Brainwashing-Related Cases - Should Witnesses Be Fryed? Virginia M. Fournier Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Virginia M. Fournier, Comment, The Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Brainwashing-Related Cases - Should Witnesses Be Fryed?, 32 Santa Clara L. Rev. 607 (1992). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol32/iss2/7 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Law Review by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY IN BRAINWASHING-RELATED CASES-SHOULD WITNESSES BE FRYED? I. INTRODUCTION Imagine that you are an attorney whose client wants to bring an action against a religious cult for brainwashing. Your client claims to have been falsely imprisoned, fraudulently deceived into giving money to the cult, and subjected to emo- tional distress. The only way that you can prove that the brain- washing has occurred and that the cult group is subject to tort liability is through expert testimony. But then you learn that courts have impeached such experts for all purposes because their views on brainwashing are not "generally accepted." Does this leave your client with no cause of action for
    [Show full text]
  • Second Circuit Review First Ammendment Law: Libel of A
    P A U L, W E I S S, R I F K I N D, W H A R T O N & G A R R I S O N SECOND CIRCUIT REVIEW FIRST AMMENDMENT LAW: LIBEL OF A PUBLIC ENTITY MARTIN FLUMENBAUM - BRAD S. KARP PUBLISHED IN THE NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL JANUARY 2001 PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON This month, we discuss a significant decision issued recently by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which examines the showing of “actual malice” required in a libel suit brought by an allegedly defamed public entity. In Church of Scientology International v. Behar,1 in an opinion written by Chief Judge John M. Walker and joined by Judges Jose A. Cabranes and Fred I. Parker, the Second Circuit affirmed District Court Judge Peter K. Leisure’s dismissal of plaintiff-appellant Church of Scientology International’s (CSI) complaint asserting claims for libel against Time magazine, its parent company Time Warner Inc. and journalist Richard Behar. In its complaint, CSI alleged that an article published by Behar in Time magazine contained a number of false and defamatory statements regarding CSI, its practices, and actions taken by its members. The court ruled that the statements at issue were either not “of and concerning” CSI, or else were written and published without actual malice. ‘Scientology: Cult of Greed’ On May 6, 1991, Time magazine published a 10-page, 7,500-word cover article entitled “Scientology: The Cult of Greed.” The article, written by defendant-appellee Richard Behar, was both highly critical of Scientology2 as a belief system generally and of specific actions allegedly taken by its members.
    [Show full text]
  • Does “Mental Slavery” Exist? an Expert Opinion
    $ The Journal of CESNUR $ Does “Mental Slavery” Exist? An Expert Opinion Massimo Introvigne CESNUR (Center for Studies on New Religions) [email protected] Holly Folk Western Washington University [email protected] Liselotte Frisk Dalarna University [email protected] Susan Palmer McGill University, Montreal [email protected] James T. Richardson University of Nevada, Reno [email protected] ABSTRACT: In August 2018, lawyers representing Daniel Ambash requested five leading scholars of new religious movements to prepare an expert opinion on whether something called “mental slavery” is generally recognized as a feature of the controversial new religious movement labeled as “cults” by their opponents. The scholars accepted to prepare an opinion pro bono (i.e. without requesting or accepting any honorary) on the general issue of “mental slavery,” summarizing or reproducing their previous work, without directly addressing the case of Daniel Ambash. Their conclusion was that “mental slavery” is simply used in this context as a synonym for “brainwashing,” and that brainwashing theories have been debunked long ago as pseudo-scientific tools used to limit religious liberty of unpopular minorities and justify the criminal practice of deprogramming. KEYWORDS: Mental Slavery, Mind Control, Brainwashing, Anti-Cult Movements, Margaret Singer, Deprogramming. The Journal of CESNUR, Volume 2, Issue 6, November—December 2018, pages 74—97. © 2018 by CESNUR. All rights reserved. ISSN: 2532-2990 | www.cesnur.net | DOI: 10.26338/tjoc.2018.2.6.6 Does “Mental Slavery” Exist? An Expert Opinion Introduction We have been requested of an expert opinion on the subject whether notions such as “brainwashing,” “mind control,” or “mental slavery,” allegedly used by “cults” to control their “victims,” are generally accepted in the social scientific study of new religious movements.
    [Show full text]
  • B, Hon. James Chou 15
    I Kendrick L. Moxon, SBN 128240 LAW OFFICE, OF KENDzuCK 2 L. MOXON, P.C. 3500 West Olive Ave., Ste. 300 J Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (818) 827-7104 4 krnoxon@kmoxon law. com 5 Attorney for Plaintiff CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY 6 INTERNATIONAL 7 8 SUPE,RIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COLINTY OF MARIN 9 10 CHURCH OF SCTENTOLOGY Case No. C\' 021632 INTE,RNATIONAL. 11 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR Plaintiff. RENEWAL OF EXPIRED BODY t2 VS. ATTACHMENT AND WARRANT OF ARRES'I 13 GE,RALD ARMSTRONG Date: October 26,2020 t4 Defendant. Tirne: 9:00am Dept.: B, Hon. James Chou 15 16 Plaintiff Church of Scientology International respectfully trpplies ex parte for the t7 renewal of a Body Attachment and Warrant of Arrest against defendant Gerald Armstrong 18 ("Armstrong") for his continued, intentional and notorious violation of the Court's Orders l9 and the Permanent Injunction issued in this case. Three different iudges from this Court 20 have found Armstrong in contempt and all three have issued warrants. Although a Body 2l Attachment and Warrant of Arrest was last issued by the Hon. Lynn Duryee, previously 22 assigned this case, it expired without enforcement when Armstrong fled the jurisdiction. He 23 has continued to violate the Court's orders from outside the jurisdrction, publicly announcing 24 that he has no intention of complying with the court's rulings. 25 This application for renewal of the warrant is being brought ex parte in light of new 26 information that Mr. Armstrong intends to return to California befbre the end of the month.
    [Show full text]